Plaintiff was working as an emergency room nurse at Chicago Provident Hospital when she was struck in the face by a homeless man that was brought in by the Chicago Police Department. Plaintiff sought recovery of $2.275 million in damages for her past medical expenses, past lost wages, past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering. The jury rendered a verdict of not guilty.

Attorney Ryan Showalter was awarded summary judgment in favor of his client who was asleep while her vehicle was being operated by her intoxicated grandson when it struck and severely injured the plaintiff.

Mr. Showalter successfully argued that there was no negligent entrustment because there was no express permission to use the vehicle. Further, there was no implied permission to use the vehicle despite the grandson residing with his client and the keys being readily available. He further argued that the fact that his client’s vehicle was parked in a manner preventing the intoxicated driver from accessing his own vehicle was not sufficient to create a cause of action for negligent entrustment.

After four days of trial, attorneys Amy Hemmingsen and Ryan Showalter obtained a not guilty verdict in a case in which their client backed out of a parking space and struck the plaintiff’s parked vehicle while the plaintiff was sitting in the driver’s seat talking on her cell phone.

The plaintiff claimed to have sustained severe low back pain, multiple disc herniations in the lumbar spine, depression, anxiety and an inability to be employed as a licensed practical nurse. Ms. Hemmingsen and Mr. Showalter argued that the plaintiff had long-standing mental and physical issues, and those conditions and complaints were unchanged following the collision.

The jury deliberated less than an hour before returning their verdict in favor of the defense. The case is captioned as Hatter v. Silva, 12 L 6558.

Attorney, Amy Hemmingsen was successful in getting summary judgment granted on behalf of her retail client for a slip and fall. Plaintiff filed a motion to re-consider which was denied and then Appealed to l the 1st District Appellate court. The judgment was upheld by the Appellate court.

The Plaintiff, alleged that on May 20, 2013, she had slipped and fallen on water on the floor of the Defendant’s neighborhood retail store. The plaintiff claimed that the Defendant was negligent in their management and maintenance of the store by allowing water to remain on the floor or for allowing a freezer to leak water onto the floor. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant was negligent for not having a written inspection policy for the store.

The Defendant claimed that it was not negligent, in their management and maintenance of the store and that there was no water on the floor, and that they had no knowledge of any water on the floor and the water was not placed on the floor by anything to do with the Defendant’s business.

The Court held that Plaintiff had failed to present evidentiary facts to support her negligence cause of action, as there was no evidence that any water was on the floor due to Defendant’s own negligence, nor was there any evidence that the Defendant had either constructive or action notice of any water on the floor. The court further found that the Defendant’s spill management policies were reasonable for the size of the store.

The Plaintiff claimed that as a result of her fall she sustained injuries other low back and ankle. The plaintiff treated with excessive chiropractic treatment and then graduated to various injections from a pain management physician and then ultimately had surgery for a herniated disc at L5-S1 over 2 years after the accident. The Plaintiff had prior L5-S1 surgery in 2005 and was a candidate for surgery for recurrent L5-S1 herniated disc in 2007. The Plaintiff claims that she had a bad recovery from the surgery and continued to complain of pain. The plaintiff’s medical bills were over $200,000.00.

Plaintiff alleged she ruptured her Achilles tendon by tripping on tree roots while running at work. The parties agreed to binding arbitration and the neutral third-party arbitrator found in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff received no compensation for her alleged injury.